Surgical block time satisfaction: A multi-institutional experience across twelve surgical disciplines

The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery

Until recently, innovations in surgery were largely represented by extensions or augmentations of the surgeon's perception. This includes advancements such as the operating microscope, tumor fluorescence, intraoperative ultrasound, and minimally invasive surgical instrumentation. However, introducing artificial intelligence (AI) into the surgical disciplines represents a transformational event. Not only does AI contribute substantively to enhancing a surgeon's perception with such methodologies as three-dimensional anatomic overlays with augmented reality, AI-improved visualization for tumor resection, and AI-formatted endoscopic and robotic surgery guidance. What truly makes AI so different is that it also provides ways to augment the surgeon's cognition. By analyzing enormous databases, AI can offer new insights that can transform the operative environment in several ways. It can enable preoperative risk assessment and allow a better selection of candidates for procedures such as organ transplantation. AI can also increase the efficiency and throughput of operating rooms and staff and coordinate the utilization of critical resources such as intensive care unit beds and ventilators. Furthermore, AI is revolutionizing intraoperative guidance, improving the detection of cancers, permitting endovascular navigation, and ensuring the reduction in collateral damage to adjacent tissues during surgery (e.g., identification of parathyroid glands during thyroidectomy). AI is also transforming how we evaluate and assess surgical proficiency and trainees in postgraduate programs. It offers the potential for multiple, serial evaluations, using various scoring systems while remaining free from the biases that can plague human supervisors. The future of AI-driven surgery holds promising trends, including the globalization of surgical education, the miniaturization of instrumentation, and the increasing success of autonomous surgical robots. These advancements raise the prospect of deploying fully autonomous surgical robots in the near future into challenging environments such as the battlefield, disaster areas, and even extraplanetary exploration. In light of these transformative developments, it is clear that the future of surgery will belong to those who can most readily embrace and harness the power of AI.

Workforce Attrition Among Male and Female Physicians Working in US Academic Hospitals, 2014-2019

Importance

Retaining female physicians in the academic health care workforce is necessary to serve the needs of sociodemographically diverse patient populations.

Objective

To investigate differences in rates of leaving academia between male and female physicians.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used Care Compare data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for all physicians who billed Medicare from teaching hospitals from March 2014 to December 2019, excluding physicians who retired during the study period. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2021, to May 24, 2022.

Exposure

Physician gender.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was leaving academia, which was defined as not billing Medicare from a teaching hospital for more than 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted adjusting for physician characteristics and region of the country.

Results

There were 294 963 physicians analyzed (69.5% male). The overall attrition rate from academia was 34.2% after 5 years (38.3% for female physicians and 32.4% for male physicians). Female physicians had higher attrition rates than their male counterparts across every career stage (time since medical school graduation: <15 years, 40.5% vs 34.8%; 15-29 years, 36.4% vs 30.3%; ≥30 years, 38.5% vs 33.3%). On adjusted analysis, female physicians were more likely to leave academia than were their male counterparts (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.28).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, female physicians were more likely to leave academia than were male physicians at all career stages. The findings suggest that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts should address attrition issues in addition to recruiting more female physicians into academic medicine.

Association of surgeons' gender with elective surgical lists in the State of Florida is explained by differences in mean operative caseloads

BACKGROUND

A recent publication reported that at three hospitals within one academic health system, female surgeons received less surgical block time than male surgeons, suggesting potential gender-based bias in operating room scheduling. We examined this observation's generalizability.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of State of Florida administrative data included all 4,176,551 ambulatory procedural encounters and inpatient elective surgical cases performed January 2017 through December 2019 by 8875 surgeons (1830 female) at all 609 non-federal hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. There were 1,509,190 lists of cases (i.e., combinations of the same surgeon, facility, and date). Logistic regression adjusted for covariables of decile of surgeon's quarterly cases, surgeon's specialty, quarter, and facility.

RESULTS

Selecting randomly a male and a female surgeons' quarter, for 66% of selections, the male surgeon performed more cases (P < .0001). Without adjustment for quarterly caseloads, lists comprised one case for 44.2% of male and 54.6% of female surgeons (difference 10.4%, P < .0001). A similar result held for lists with one or two cases (difference 9.1%, P < .0001). However, incorporating quarterly operative caseloads, the direction of the observed difference between male and female surgeons was reversed both for case lists with one (-2.1%, P = .03) or one or two cases (-1.8%, P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the aforementioned single university health system results but show that the differences between male and female surgeons in their lists were not due to systematic bias in operating room scheduling (e.g., completing three brief elective cases in a week on three different workdays) but in their total case numbers. The finding that surgeons performing lists comprising a single case were more often female than male provides a previously unrecognized reason why operating room managers should help facilitate the workload of surgeons performing only one case on operative (anesthesia) workdays.

Rural-Urban Differences in Breast Cancer Surgical Delays in Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgery are associated with worsened survival. Delays are more common in urban-residing patients, although factors specific to surgical delays among rural and urban patients are not well understood.

METHODS

We used a 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare claims during 2007-2014 to identify 238,491 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer undergoing initial surgery and assessed whether they experienced biopsy-to-surgery intervals > 90 days. We employed multilevel regression to identify associations between delays and patient, regional, and surgeon characteristics, both in combined analyses and stratified by rurality of patient residence.

RESULTS

Delays were more prevalent among urban patients (2.5%) than rural patients (1.9%). Rural patients with medium- or high-volume surgeons had lower odds of delay than patients with low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.88; OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90). Rural patients whose surgeon operated at ≥ 3 hospitals were more likely to experience delays (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.01-1.64, Ref: 1 hospital). Patient driving times ≥ 1 h were associated with delays among urban patients only. Age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, multimorbidity, and academic/specialty hospital status were associated with delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic, geographic, surgeon, and facility factors have distinct associations with > 90-day delays to initial breast cancer surgery. Interventions to improve timeliness of breast cancer surgery may have disparate impacts on vulnerable populations by rural-urban status.

Benchmarking Surgeons’ Gender and Year of Medical School Graduation Associated With Monthly Operative Workdays for Multispecialty Groups

Background

Female surgeons reportedly receive less surgical block time and fewer procedural referrals than male surgeons. In this study, we compared operative days between female and male surgeons throughout Florida. Our objective was to facilitate benchmarking by multispecialty groups, both the endpoint to use for statistically reliable results and expected differences.

Methodology

The historical cohort study included all 4,060,070 ambulatory procedural encounters and inpatient elective surgical states performed between January 2017 and December 2019 by 8,472 surgeons at 609 facilities. Surgeons’ gender, year of medical school graduation, and surgical specialty were obtained from their National Provider Identifiers.

Results

Female surgeons operated an average of 1.0 fewer days per month than matched male surgeons (99% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.2 fewer days, P < 0.0001). The mean differences were 0.8 to 1.4 fewer days per month among each of the five quintiles of years of graduation from medical school (all P ≤ 0.0050). Results were comparable when repeated using the number of monthly cases the surgeons performed.

Conclusions

An average difference of ≤1.4 days per month is a conservative estimate for the current status quo of the workload difference in Florida. Suppose that a group’s female surgeons average more than two fewer operative days per month than the group’s male surgeons of the same specialty. Such a large average difference would call for investigation of what might reflect systematic bias. While such a difference may reflect good flexibility of the organization, it may show a lack of responsiveness (e.g., fewer referrals of procedural patients to female surgeons or bias when apportioning allocated operating room time).

Most surgeons' daily elective lists in Florida comprise only 1 or 2 elective cases, making percent utilization unreliable for planning individual surgeons' block time

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Operating room (OR) utilization has been shown in multiple studies to be an inappropriate metric for planning OR time for individual surgeons. Among surgeons with low daily caseloads, percentage utilization cannot be measured accurately because confidence limits are extremely wide. In Iowa, a largely rural state, most surgeons performed only 1 or 2 elective cases on their OR days. To assess generalizability, we analyzed Florida, a state with many high-population density areas.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

The 602 facilities in Florida that performed inpatient or outpatient elective surgery from January 2010 through December 2019.

SUBJECTS

The providers licensed to perform surgery in Florida (physician, oral surgeons, dentists, and podiatrists) were identified by their national provider number. Hospitals were deidentified before analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the mean among facilities in percentages of surgeon-day combinations ("lists") containing 1 or 2 cases. Proportions were calculated using Freeman-Tukey transformation and the harmonic mean of the number of lists at each facility. Comparison to "most" (>50%) used Student's two-sided one-group t-test.

MAIN RESULTS

Averaging among hospitals, most surgeons' lists included 1 or 2 cases (64.4%; 99% confidence interval [CI] 61.3%-67.4%) P < 0.00001). Many lists had 1 case (44.2%, 99% CI 41.2%-47.2%). Nearly all (96.7%) surgeons operated at just one hospital on their OR days.

CONCLUSIONS

Most surgeons' lists of elective surgical cases comprised 1 or 2 cases in the largely urban state of Florida, as previously found in the largely rural state of Iowa. Results were insensitive to organizational size or county population. Thus, our finding is generalizable in the United States. Consequently, neither adjusted nor raw utilization should be used solely when allocating OR time to individual surgeons. Anesthesia and nursing coverage of cases can be based on maximizing the efficiency of use of OR time.